These days when sending an email I am often reminded of this little rhyme:
Yesterday I climbed the stair,
And met a man that wasn’t there.
He wasn’t there again today,
I really wish he’d go away.
Ah, the Great Void. The advent of written communication sometime in the distant past implied the possibility of a response. At first the response could take several days as couriers ran back and forth with written messages. Much later the system was formalized with the advent of postal mail. But then came the telegraph, often one way, followed by the fax. The virtue of the fax was that it could initiate a correspondence between people at a distance from one another on a virtually instantaneous basis. So it was the expectation was heightened that within a short time of sending a fax, usually no more than a day, a response if requested, would be received.
All this changed with email which increased the expectation that any response called for would arrive in a shorter period of time, usually a matter of a few hours. This was followed more recently by text messaging which promised virtually instant response.
But as the technology permitted for increasing speed in the delivery of initial communication and response there was a counter-current of delay in response not caused by the speed of sending messages but speed in the preparation and sending of response. It has now reached the point where with increasing frequency no response, although explicitly called for, is prepared or sent. So the advent of uni-polar communication: messages sent without eliciting a response.
Some have argued that the reason for this lack of response is the overwhelming number of messages received and the need to prioritize which deserve the time to read and respond to.
Others argue that the speed-up in communication along with the ease of sending messages has flooded the ether with messages from many sources, contaminating the message stream. Some messages are indeed harmful but neither this fact nor the rising volume of messages is sufficient to explain the current ubiquity of lack of response. It’s hard to believe that at one time senior people employed correspondence secretaries among whose functions was acknowledging all incoming messages along with a promise to bring the communication to the attention of the Grand Poobah.
Another factor may be de-centralization of decision-making, i.e., to one or more committees that must be consulted, further delaying response.
Perhaps we ought to look as well at the demise of institutional etiquette, i.e., the rise of simple rudeness.
Whatever the cause or causes it’s time to reinstitute the fine custom of quick response, at least acknowledgement. So please everyone, RSVP!
